L’ethos en sociologie : perspectives de recherche pour un concept toujours fertile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir d’une enquête sociologique sur les conditions de pratique et le statut social des artistes en arts visuels aujourd’hui, l’article présente une réflexion sur le concept d’ethos, sur lequel s’est particulièrement orientée cette recherche. L’objectif est ici de montrer comment, par-delà son ancienneté, cette notion d’ethos semble encore aujourd’hui pertinente, particulièrement en regard de son potentiel analytique à lier l’étude des pratiques et celle des valeurs, dans une considération conjuguée de la liberté d’un sujet individuel et de son rattachement à des représentations socialement constituées. Il s’agit aussi de donner un aperçu du potentiel heuristique du concept d’ethos dans le contexte d’une enquête sociologique de terrain où il se trouve opérationnalisé, en l’occurrence celle que j’ai menée entre 2008 et 2013 sur les artistes en arts visuels au Québec et en Belgique francophone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".